Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-10-25
the INTERSTATE COMMERCE LAW.
Representatives Of Express COmpa-
mics Argue that the Act does NOT Al.
feet Them.

The Interstate Commerce Commission gave
hearing to-day to counsel representing those ex-
press companies which do not admit that they fall
within or are amenabe to the Interstate commerce
law.
Mr.. Clarence Seward. counsel for Adams Ex-
press Co., FIRST addressed the Commission. He
assumed that the briefs OF counsel would be read,
and did not propose to reState the matters therein
covered. He read from o circular received from
the Department Of the Interior In 1880. BY all ex-
press companies, setting Orth the desirability OF
having as full statement as possible Of the scope
he said, was recognition OF the express
business by Federal Department as
~ gsse something snirey apart
there was nothing upon the face OF the act 10
show any intent upon the part Of Congress to In.
was as distinctive from the railroad business as
was the telegraph business. No one would con-
found an express package with freight package;
or partly by rail- and partly by water, IN one con-
tinuOus line, /" ne declared That there was no ex-
IN the nn county doing
quoted from decisions OF the Supreme Court 70 the
effect thai express companies are not common
Theo. N. Pomeroy, Of Auburn, N. Y, represent
ing the American, National and Wells, Fargo q
Co. Express Companies, set forth In detail, the
paSies. Mr. fon aS ssia mat when hi adVoe
was frst sought upon this bill ne examined II, and
thought from the reading OF The rsf four see0hs
ed 10 be included, but In the other sections ne
found matter which was not to be reconciled with
upon the theory that the act only referred to car
riefs owning their own vehicles and lines In
search OF light he had examined the report OF tine
Committee and the testimony taken by II. No
where were express companies named No ex-
press company oricials were called upon for In
formation.
NO EXPRESS COMPANY COULD STAND IT.
Compliance with the law, he said in reply to in
quiries by Commissioner Walker, would be i'm
possible because no express company could bea
the enormous clerical expense. There would be no
other objection 80 far as he could see, to compli-
clients that they were not here 70 resist the opera
lions OF the law, but to consult with the Commits
sion with regard to its Interpretation.
Mr. w. W. MacFarland, rep esenling the United
states Express Company, made an argument in
reference to the meaning S Of tue words common
carriers and the Liability OF express companies
ALEr1sR TO RAILROAD ooMrANrKs
The following is the text Of a letter recently
sent out to railroad companies by the Interstate
Commerce Commission:
"Are there any points upon the railroad Of your
company or upon mar. any railroad operated by your
Interstate rates for passengers or freight made
by your road alone. or In combination with other
point, sss s
same liner
"If yes please state what points are to be treated
Also state the rates made to from such points
respectively, showing the higher and the lower
rates charged.
"The foregoing information could probably be
collected from the tariffs file In the Office OF the
Commission, but not without great labor and an
enormous amount Of comparison and revision.
Every manager can, Of course state at once OF his
own knowledge, how the fourth section OF the act
to regulate commerce is practically applied at the
stations on his own line.
1.-The work OF the commission will be greatly IA
cilitated by prompt answers to the above questions
which are ASKED under the 10Th section or the act
Any statement which you may see Mt to make con-
corning the circumstances and conditions OF the
traffic any, conduc In opposition TO the short
haul principle OF the law, will be considered and
such explanation will probably be OF material as
its dutteS.n